Nice work. Kinda weird to see a white ET.
Are the Shuttle flags going to be a recurring motif in this TL?
I recall, yes.Tanks were white on the first few launches.
I am not a rocket scientist, so please tear what I am about to write apart. having read this TL with interest I have some questions and observations,
Looking at the various NASA projects up thread got me thinking.
There were proposals for payload to be carried in front of the tank, primarily light and large and another proposal for heavier payloads below the tank.
Now to make the fuel tank into a workable space station it appears to me that launching the tank with air locks, docking stations and habitats built at both ends of the tank and integral to it. Surely this would make the conversion f the empty tank to a usable habitat easier, The Enterprise shuttle would still be converted and integrated in to the space station, The main question is can this be done within the maximum lift to orbit capability of the stack.
Does this suggestion have any merit at all?
Those were to be launched with the orbiter's cargo bay empty, as otherwise the launch stack would not have enough propellant to be able to lift the additional mass to the target altitude, and so would not be possible with Space Station Enterprise without further modifications for additional propellant capacity in either the ET or SRBs, probably both.I am not a rocket scientist, so please tear what I am about to write apart. having read this TL with interest I have some questions and observations,
Looking at the various NASA projects up thread got me thinking.
There were proposals for payload to be carried in front of the tank, primarily light and large and another proposal for heavier payloads below the tank.
Now to make the fuel tank into a workable space station it appears to me that launching the tank with air locks, docking stations and habitats built at both ends of the tank and integral to it. Surely this would make the conversion f the empty tank to a usable habitat easier, The Enterprise shuttle would still be converted and integrated in to the space station, The main question is can this be done within the maximum lift to orbit capability of the stack.
Does this suggestion have any merit at all?
Not really. Being able to use SSMEs to close to the target orbit was expected to allow the carriage of a fair amount of weight in both the Orbiter and the ET payload unit. Certainly the Aft Cargo Carrier, probably the most developed concept, envisioned missions carrying payloads in both the orbiter and the ACC. For example, if you read one of Portree's posts on the subject, you'll find that Martin Marietta envisionedThose were to be launched with the orbiter's cargo bay empty, as otherwise the launch stack would not have enough propellant to be able to lift the additional mass to the target altitude, and so would not be possible with Space Station Enterprise without further modifications for additional propellant capacity in either the ET or SRBs, probably both.
Flight 1, a mission with an initial 160-nautical-mile orbit at 28.5° of inclination, would see three satellites with identical solid-propellant upper stages launched in the ACC: the 8848-pound Brazilsat/Payload Assist Module (PAM)-D, the 8848-pound GOES/PAM-D, and the 9399-pound Telsat/PAM-D. The Orbiter, meanwhile, would carry a 58-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter "large observatory" with a mass of 18,700 pounds.
Bonus image of the Enterprise stack! I think my 3D modelling skills are improving...
So,pretty much Hubble?a 58-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter "large observatory" with a mass of 18,700 pounds
So from the comments it would appear that a top and tailed tank would in theory be possible, whether advantageous is a another matter entirely
My main point was that having habit and docking station prebuilt on earth and fitted out is a lot quicker and easier than working in the tank. Also having direct access to the tanks from either end is easier and quicker than going down a tortuously curved inflated access tube, As another bonus it may be possible to build an annular access hatch/ lock that permits the insertion of relatively large items into the tank. If it is practical to open the tank to vacuum (at start of mission say) then with both inner and outer lock doors open there is no limit to the length of structure inserted. I know this might be a load of rubbish but comments would be useful and illuminating
Ah, but were the SRB nozzles Ocean Grey or Military Gray?Your modeling is fantastic as always but...
(jk-str) The color scheme is so off it's painful! Sure the ET is white but you used NASA-White-049 which was only ever used on the SRBs and was never 'vacuum' rated!
They were DoD Gray 040 with a light wash of MilSpec Black to bring out the accents... (Who knew SRB's had accents? But it's true, that 'roar' is really a long drawn out "yehawwww" sound. True I swear! )Ah, but were the SRB nozzles Ocean Grey or Military Gray?
Bonus image of the Enterprise stack! I think my 3D modelling skills are improving...